Post by retirednavychief on Nov 14, 2012 12:08:18 GMT -5

A girl once promised me a trip around the world. I went home and packed my suitcase and waited for her to call me up to begin the journey but she never called back. She must have gotten busy or something... most likely she sobered up.

Post by Liability on Nov 16, 2012 9:14:23 GMT -5

I think the world takes backseat to U.S. narcissism when we have a presidential election.

It ain't just during the election ...

Because most of the other nations of the world spend so much time worrying about their planetary neighbors. Yes. It's just the U.S. that allows its views of its own self interest to guide its policies.

Post by Andalublue on Nov 16, 2012 9:24:10 GMT -5

This is an interesting thread to me because it will probably be the extent to which debate here extends beyond US domestic topics that will decide whether I stick around for long. I'm interested in politics in general, and especially in international politics, and if that doesn't figure prominently in the future of PFFA, I'll probably not contribute much to the site's future.

I'd suggest that just a single, undifferentiated World Politics sub-forum is going to be insufficient to cover global politics properly. I know that it's early days and that things will evolve according to the interest of the joining members, so I'll be patient.

Post by Liability on Nov 16, 2012 9:30:12 GMT -5

This is an interesting thread to me because it will probably be the extent to which debate here extends beyond US domestic topics that will decide whether I stick around for long. I'm interested in politics in general, and especially in international politics, and if that doesn't figure prominently in the future of PFFA, I'll probably not contribute much to the site's future.

I'd suggest that just a single, undifferentiated World Politics sub-forum is going to be insufficient to cover global politics properly. I know that it's early days and that things will evolve according to the interest of the joining members, so I'll be patient.

There is no formal PFFA rule about "no whining."

But still, you could make a contribution instead of just advising us that if the place doesn't shape up to your particular liking, you'll leave. I mean, no shit. Who the fuck would stay if they didn't like the place?{I don't care for the taste of liver so NEWSFLASH, I will not eat a dinner including liver.}

Your contribution COULD be to provide a list of all the nations of the world whose foreign policies are not determined by their own respective considered conclusions as to what is most in their own respective self interests.

Post by Andalublue on Nov 16, 2012 10:15:54 GMT -5

But still, you could make a contribution instead of just advising us that if the place doesn't shape up to your particular liking, you'll leave. I mean, no shit. Who the fuck would stay if they didn't like the place?{I don't care for the taste of liver so NEWSFLASH, I will not eat a dinner including liver.}

Your contribution COULD be to provide a list of all the nations of the world whose foreign policies are not determined by their own respective considered conclusions as to what is most in their own respective self interests.

I could, but that would be somewhat off-topic. As far as I can see this isn't a thread about nations operating their FP according strictly to self-interest. It's about whether 'we', I assume that means the US in general, has no interest in the world. It's perfectly possible for 'you' to take a very intense interest in the rest of the world while still maintaining a FP of pure self-interest.

I'd argue that the US military-industrial elite are far too interested in the rest of the world, and its natural resources and markets, while depending on the complete lack of interest of the general population, and certainly the electorate, in foreign policy matters. That kind of allows your military and corporations to behave towards foreigners in ways you would be rightly outraged were they to treat US citizens similarly.

Post by toro on Nov 16, 2012 10:49:29 GMT -5

Because most of the other nations of the world spend so much time worrying about their planetary neighbors. Yes. It's just the U.S. that allows its views of its own self interest to guide its policies.

Americans probably know less about what's going on outside its borders than any other rich nation on earth.

But when foreigners bitch about this, I tell them that this is a human thing, not an American thing. Generally, the center knows less about the outside than the outside knows about the center. That's true pretty much wherever you go. So the English outside of London know more about what's going on in London than Londoners know about what's going on in the rest of England. Parisians know less about what's going on in the rest of France than the rest of France knows what is going on in Paris. Same with America. Because America is the most important country in the world, foreigners know more about America than America knows about foreigners.

It is my general observation, however, that Americans could be a little less self-absorbed.

Post by Liability on Nov 16, 2012 12:15:43 GMT -5

But still, you could make a contribution instead of just advising us that if the place doesn't shape up to your particular liking, you'll leave. I mean, no shit. Who the fuck would stay if they didn't like the place?{I don't care for the taste of liver so NEWSFLASH, I will not eat a dinner including liver.}

Your contribution COULD be to provide a list of all the nations of the world whose foreign policies are not determined by their own respective considered conclusions as to what is most in their own respective self interests.

I could, but that would be somewhat off-topic. As far as I can see this isn't a thread about nations operating their FP according strictly to self-interest. It's about whether 'we', I assume that means the US in general, has no interest in the world. It's perfectly possible for 'you' to take a very intense interest in the rest of the world while still maintaining a FP of pure self-interest.

I'd argue that the US military-industrial elite are far too interested in the rest of the world, and its natural resources and markets, while depending on the complete lack of interest of the general population, and certainly the electorate, in foreign policy matters. That kind of allows your military and corporations to behave towards foreigners in ways you would be rightly outraged were they to treat US citizens similarly.

If one defines "a very intense interest in the rest of the world" solely as a function of "what's in it for us" then sure. And that clearly is NOT what was meant.

Otherwise, this thread is very much about how the US is "different" from other countries in our alleged level of narcissism.

And that's just a lot of empty bullshit rhetoric.

The complaint you seem to be trying to express is that BECAUSE we have become a significant (preeminent) world power in terms of the military and industry, therefore the way "we" behave toward foreigners is directly implicated in a very negative way. I have a news flash for you. If we play it harder, that's only because we have the ability. But that's merely a difference in degree, not a difference of kind.

Chile does not impact us as directly as we impact Chile. That's true. Chile can't. But China directly affects its neighbors exactly because it can. Ditto that with the former Soviet Union and to a lesser extent, present day Russia. Lots of "colonial" nations (or recently colonial nations) express outrage at how other countries from great Britain to Portugal "treat" them.

That we do it to some extend, too, is not "narcissism." That's just a misapplication of a term of psychology to the world of international relations. It doesn't apply. It's silly.

Post by Andalublue on Nov 16, 2012 16:06:58 GMT -5

If one defines "a very intense interest in the rest of the world" solely as a function of "what's in it for us" then sure. And that clearly is NOT what was meant.

Otherwise, this thread is very much about how the US is "different" from other countries in our alleged level of narcissism.

And that's just a lot of empty bullshit rhetoric.

The complaint you seem to be trying to express is that BECAUSE we have become a significant (preeminent) world power in terms of the military and industry, therefore the way "we" behave toward foreigners is directly implicated in a very negative way. I have a news flash for you. If we play it harder, that's only because we have the ability. But that's merely a difference in degree, not a difference of kind.

Chile does not impact us as directly as we impact Chile. That's true. Chile can't. But China directly affects its neighbors exactly because it can. Ditto that with the former Soviet Union and to a lesser extent, present day Russia. Lots of "colonial" nations (or recently colonial nations) express outrage at how other countries from great Britain to Portugal "treat" them.

That we do it to some extend, too, is not "narcissism." That's just a misapplication of a term of psychology to the world of international relations. It doesn't apply. It's silly.

I never used the term narcissism because that's not what I'm referring to, at all. Self-interest in geo-political terms is not narcissism, as you said the terminology of psychology doesn't apply, and in any case, self-interest and narcissism aren't synonyms.

A similarly silly rationale for the behaviour of world powers is saying they do things "because we have the ability". That would be an invitation to draw an analogy between the US and a playground bully who's 50 pounds heavier than his opponent and just feels like inflicting pain. As I said, silly.

No, the explanation of the behaviour of a superpower that pursues only its own self-interest is in the cementing of that pre-eminent position of power and wealth, an analysis that it can only maintain its pre-eminent position by ensuring that no emerging powers are able to challenge it. It maintains its economic pre-eminence by ensuring that, far from alleviating social and economic need on a global scale, wealth distribution remains very strictly unequal.

Using the tools of its powerful cultural penetration it also builds a picture of attractive prosperity for one and all, it builds a pretty picture of all the goodies that it tells the rest of the world it should aspire to and then draws a map towards that prosperity, that shangri-la which demands that people become consumers of all those goods that such superpowers can corner the market in.

In this scenario the inequality and poverty of the world is not just insuperable, it's essential. It pits the not-that-wealthy directly against the poor, and the poor against the destitute.

This is why I said that 'you' perhaps show too much of an interest in the rest of the world, and not a good interest, but a self-interested interest.

Post by Liability on Nov 16, 2012 20:23:31 GMT -5

If one defines "a very intense interest in the rest of the world" solely as a function of "what's in it for us" then sure. And that clearly is NOT what was meant.

Otherwise, this thread is very much about how the US is "different" from other countries in our alleged level of narcissism.

And that's just a lot of empty bullshit rhetoric.

The complaint you seem to be trying to express is that BECAUSE we have become a significant (preeminent) world power in terms of the military and industry, therefore the way "we" behave toward foreigners is directly implicated in a very negative way. I have a news flash for you. If we play it harder, that's only because we have the ability. But that's merely a difference in degree, not a difference of kind.

Chile does not impact us as directly as we impact Chile. That's true. Chile can't. But China directly affects its neighbors exactly because it can. Ditto that with the former Soviet Union and to a lesser extent, present day Russia. Lots of "colonial" nations (or recently colonial nations) express outrage at how other countries from great Britain to Portugal "treat" them.

That we do it to some extend, too, is not "narcissism." That's just a misapplication of a term of psychology to the world of international relations. It doesn't apply. It's silly.

I never used the term narcissism because that's not what I'm referring to, at all. Self-interest in geo-political terms is not narcissism, as you said the terminology of psychology doesn't apply, and in any case, self-interest and narcissism aren't synonyms.

A similarly silly rationale for the behaviour of world powers is saying they do things "because we have the ability". That would be an invitation to draw an analogy between the US and a playground bully who's 50 pounds heavier than his opponent and just feels like inflicting pain. As I said, silly.

No, the explanation of the behaviour of a superpower that pursues only its own self-interest is in the cementing of that pre-eminent position of power and wealth, an analysis that it can only maintain its pre-eminent position by ensuring that no emerging powers are able to challenge it. It maintains its economic pre-eminence by ensuring that, far from alleviating social and economic need on a global scale, wealth distribution remains very strictly unequal.

Using the tools of its powerful cultural penetration it also builds a picture of attractive prosperity for one and all, it builds a pretty picture of all the goodies that it tells the rest of the world it should aspire to and then draws a map towards that prosperity, that shangri-la which demands that people become consumers of all those goods that such superpowers can corner the market in.

In this scenario the inequality and poverty of the world is not just insuperable, it's essential. It pits the not-that-wealthy directly against the poor, and the poor against the destitute.

This is why I said that 'you' perhaps show too much of an interest in the rest of the world, and not a good interest, but a self-interested interest.

To be real honest with you, andalublue, I am having a clusterfuck of real world problems lately. And I mean real problems.

So, tonight, I got myself a little bit drunk.

True story.

Therefore, I could not possibly respond in a coherent manner to whateverthefuck you just said.

But I am guessing you said something intelligent.

So, if you'll forgive me (and even in you won't) I have to pass on answering you for a bit.

Post by Liability on Nov 17, 2012 12:08:49 GMT -5

* * * *I never used the term narcissism because that's not what I'm referring to, at all. Self-interest in geo-political terms is not narcissism, as you said the terminology of psychology doesn't apply, and in any case, self-interest and narcissism aren't synonyms.

A similarly silly rationale for the behaviour of world powers is saying they do things "because we have the ability". That would be an invitation to draw an analogy between the US and a playground bully who's 50 pounds heavier than his opponent and just feels like inflicting pain. As I said, silly.

That would be silly. So, at least so far, I do not disagree. SOME people do seem to suggest that w behave like a world stage bully merely because we do have that extra weight and size advantage. Puerile "analysis." Silly indeed.

No, the explanation of the behaviour of a superpower that pursues only its own self-interest is in the cementing of that pre-eminent position of power and wealth, an analysis that it can only maintain its pre-eminent position by ensuring that no emerging powers are able to challenge it. It maintains its economic pre-eminence by ensuring that, far from alleviating social and economic need on a global scale, wealth distribution remains very strictly unequal.

Partial agreement. You said "the" explanation. It is not "the" explanation. It is one explanation or maybe one facet of a larger complex set of explanations. But, as "explanations go," it seems to me to be a non-starter. I see no evidence supporting the implicit claim that the USA attempts to keep itself "up" by forcing others to remain "down." Certainly, saying it and supporting it are two different propositions. I see no hint of support made by you for that proposition.

I DO see wealth distribution as being unequal; but I see no reason to engage in the kind of socialist engineering you appear to hint at to "correct" that.

Using the tools of its powerful cultural penetration it also builds a picture of attractive prosperity for one and all, it builds a pretty picture of all the goodies that it tells the rest of the world it should aspire to and then draws a map towards that prosperity, that shangri-la which demands that people become consumers of all those goods that such superpowers can corner the market in.

This is why I said that 'you' perhaps show too much of an interest in the rest of the world, and not a good interest, but a self-interested interest.

You border on full blown babble. We show an interest in the rest of the world and there is ABSOLUTELY a self-interest component in that. So fucking what? Why shouldn't there be? And why is that not -- inherently -- a "good" interest? Nice value judgment, but a silly and skewed one. I can just as readily maintain that it is generally a very good thing and a valuable and useful interest FOR those, whom we see as future "markets," to join in a world wide capitalist system. And that we derive benefits from it doesn't change that. It is a component and good part of the equation.

Post by Swagger on Nov 17, 2012 16:45:08 GMT -5

When the Romans conquered the known world, they were the centre of their own universe. When Britain conquered a third of the globe, they/we were the centre of their own universe. When the Nazis conquered continental Europe, they were the centre of their own universe.

Can any of you see a pattern building here, or shall I go on to explain the obvious? The United States is no different from its predecessors, in that when you're top dog you're entitled to inflate your own ego somewhat.

Post by Andalublue on Nov 18, 2012 7:33:44 GMT -5

* * * *Partial agreement. You said "the" explanation. It is not "the" explanation. It is one explanation or maybe one facet of a larger complex set of explanations. But, as "explanations go," it seems to me to be a non-starter. I see no evidence supporting the implicit claim that the USA attempts to keep itself "up" by forcing others to remain "down." Certainly, saying it and supporting it are two different propositions. I see no hint of support made by you for that proposition.

I DO see wealth distribution as being unequal; but I see no reason to engage in the kind of socialist engineering you appear to hint at to "correct" that.

Sadly too few of those who are benefitting from being on the right end of wealth inequality do. It's hardly surprising, I suppose.

This is why I said that 'you' perhaps show too much of an interest in the rest of the world, and not a good interest, but a self-interested interest.

You border on full blown babble. We show an interest in the rest of the world and there is ABSOLUTELY a self-interest component in that. So fucking what? Why shouldn't there be? And why is that not -- inherently -- a "good" interest? Nice value judgment, but a silly and skewed one. I can just as readily maintain that it is generally a very good thing and a valuable and useful interest FOR those, whom we see as future "markets," to join in a world wide capitalist system. And that we derive benefits from it doesn't change that. It is a component and good part of the equation.

Well, not everyone feels that it is to the benefit of everyone to join a worldwide capitalist system, with its endless period of boom and bust, in-built essential and enormous wealth inequalities and the supercession of the power of sovereign nations with global corporations unaccountable to anyone but their rich, western shareholders.

Once you understand that not everyone wants what you want, and has the right to decide not to participate in your self-skewed market, uncoerced, you'll stop trying to make them do so by force of arms.

Post by Liability on Nov 18, 2012 9:08:50 GMT -5

I see. So if we happen to be benefiting from the fact that there exists inequality, we have some moral imperative to do away with it?

Please.

I do not even marginally agree with "the redistribution of wealth" in that socialist sense. Lots of left-leaning individuals take it as an article of faith, though.

I maintain that the utopia they seek is not just impossible but ultimately not even desirable.

These conversations have a tendency to slog toward the liberals' pretty mindless talking point which claims that if you dare disagree with their point of view, you must necessarily prefer that the less affluent must remain bound in the depths of poverty. And that is of course complete bullshit.

It isn't an argument. It is a rhetorical tool used to bludgeon the sensibilities of their opponents. It is based on an essentially dishonest premise.

In reality, proponents of capitalism who are willing to embrace (much less just accept) "inequality of wealth" do so on the belief that humankind has made long strides and societal progress precisely BECAUSE of capitalism. The benefits have not gone just to the more affluent. It has gone to all concerned. Getting the rest of the world to embrace capitalism is expected to have the same impact for all people of the world.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. Provided we have some kind of minimal "net," the inequality of wealth is a net good thing for rich and poor alike. PART of the reason for that is incentive. It implicates human nature. It exalts personal freedom and liberty. It provides REWARDS for genius and industry. That is what leads to all kinds of progress which benefit everyone.

Post by Nice Kitty on Nov 18, 2012 10:01:46 GMT -5

Shoutbox

Give a shout out to someone on PFFA!

plasmaball: Yes a woman's Orgasm is like trying to spot the wild snow leopard. You must wait weeks upon maybe months and if you are lucky you might spot a small puddle from this cunning creature called the orgasm. its more like sometimes you have to fake it becauseFeb 7, 2013 12:05:17 GMT -5